


**0« 







o V 

* ^ 






^o* 















%^ .-ate-: %/ 







^ 











* „v V, 




o *.„,< 

'•■A/.- 



V 







<* .VS 



,* v .' 



^ * 










4> 



.■>,- 



^ * » « ° \0 







/,-: 




% 



IS?.' -j- -1 °-» '• 



'O^ 











- + C u • 

I"" ^o* 

F; ^ -.1 







^ •'•••' ^ 









.0' 



>. * 








'bV" 






Ad Respublicas firmandas, et ad stabiliendas vires, sanados populos, omnia noitra 
permit oratio. — Cicero de Legibits. 



SPEECH 

OF 

HOI. JAMES BROOKS, 



OF NEW YORK, 



PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE, 

IN THE 

HOUSE OF REPEESENTATIVES, 



DECEMBER, 1864 



^4 



SPEECH 



Mr. Chairman. —(The House was in Committee of the Whole. ) 
There are two cardinal topics in the Message of the President, 
to which I wish particularly to solicit attention ; and these are, 
first, that the war must go on without negotiation ; and, second, 
that the war must go on until the abolition of slavery is made 
perpetual throughout all portions of the old United States. 

AMENDMENTS PROPOSED TO THE CONSTITUTION. 

Permit me, first, to call the attention of the House to the 
numerous amendments which are proposed to the Constitution. 
One of them is, to change the principle of representation, pro- 
posed by the gentleman from Wisconsin, (Mr. Sloan) another 
is, to change the great principle of the Constitution as to export 
duties, proposed by the honorable member from Maryland, (Mr. 
Davis) and another comes down to us from the Senate, with 
the sanction of the President of the United States, and that is, 
to alter the Constitution on the subject of slavery. No time 
seems to me more inauspicious than in the midst of civil war, 
with the clangor of arms all around us, with comparatively but 
a small territorial part of our whole country assembled by their 
Representatives upon the floor of this House ; no time, sir, seems 
to me more inauspicious to make great fundamental changes of 
the Constitution of the United States. 

SLAVERY AND TOLERATION. 

But it is said that slavery is the stumbling-block in the way 
of the restoration of the Union, and that without the abolition 
of slavery it is not possible for us, now or hereafter, to live on 
terms of amity and peace with our former southern countrymen. 
I do not now, or at any time this Session, propose to re-discuss 
this topic of slavery. I have nothing new to say upon it, or, but 
little to take back. I adhere to the opinions which I have 
heretofore advanced on that subject on the floor of this House, 
and in the main, to the opinions which I have held for twenty- 
five or thirty years, and which some, not unkind friend, has re- 



produced for the reading of the House, from a newspaper I wrote 
for, years and years ago. These opinions are but little changed. 
I do not, however, intend to discuss the abstract question of sla- 
very at all, or its political or constitutional connections with 
the Government of the land. 

The approval of a Bystemof Blavery, Mr. Chairman, and the 
acceptance of il as an institution existing, arc very different 
things. I accept it, if I do not approve. The Constitution of 
my country teaches me to be tolerant in all things, even in the 
most important of all matters, that of religion. Intolerance is 
criminal at all times; but intolerance is repelled under our form 
of Government in every line and letter of that Constitution un- 
der which we live ; and, if the Constitution did not teach me thai, 
the Bible does. Sir, when the Saviour was- on earth, He lived un- 
der a Government where there were sixty millions of slaves ; and 
when, from the Mount of Olives, lie ascended into heaven, His 
eyes looked down upon Jerusalem and Judea, full of thousands 
and tens of thousands of slaves. And when the Apostle Paul 
stood upon Mars' hill, after wandering among the magnificent 
temples of the Acropolis, some of them dedicated to the unknown 
God, he preached to the Athenians surrounded by their masses 
of slaves, no intolerance, no persecution, no civil war for the 
abolition of slavery ; but if not there, elsewhere, servants, obey 
your masters. The teachings of our Saviour were also, to ren- 
der unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the 
things that are God's, with submission to civil government, and 
the Christian obedience even of slaves to their masters. The 
whole spirit of the Evangelists is full of like toleration to an 
institution, which, in the end, the lessons of Christianity were 
to subvert, but the overthrow of which, by violence and force, 
is there everywhere condemned. 

If, then, the Saviour of the world and His apostles were thus 
tolerant upon the subject of slavery, why cannot there be an 
equal toleration among His professed people in their adminis- 
tration of the Government in this country ? Toleration, indeed, 
is the essentia] principle of our institutions. Toleration per- 
vades every part of our social organization. We are tolerant 
of the .lew. who does not believe in the Saviour. We are toler- 
ant of those Christians who do not respect our Sabbath. We 
are tolerant of a great and rising State in the centre of this 



continent, which has now one hundred and twenty thousand peo- 
ple. We are tolerant there upon the subject of polygamy, ex- 
pressly forbidden in the New Testament, if tolerated in the Old ; 
and these people from this great Territory are admitted to a seat 
upon the floor of this House, and take part in our deliberations 
and debates, while we are in a frightful civil war now seem- 
ingly only to abolish negro slavery ! 

And now are we to be told, at this day and hour, that we 
cannot be tolerant upon this subject of slavery, when not only 
the Saviour and the apostles tolerated it, but when the patriarchs 
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, were holders of bondmen and bond- 
women ? Let me not be misunderstood ; I do not mean to be 
understood as saying that the New Testament upholds slavery, 
and I do not mean to say there are no teachings in the sermons of 
our Saviour and the apostles, which in the end would abolish slav- 
ery over the whole earth ; but I do mean to say that not only 
the Saviour and the apostles, but that the fathers of the Church 
were tolerant with slavery, and that for more than a thousand 
years, the fathers of the Church exercised a religious and poli- 
tical influence through the emperors of Rome in upholding the 
institution of slavery from abolition, by force or violence, while 
they left it to be abolished by the peaceful and graceful influ- 
ence of Christianity. And yet here in six months, by constitur 
tional proclamation, or, in five or six years by civil war, we pro- 
pose to abolish it in blood and by violence, through an empire 
almost as vast as the empire of Rome." Slavery was not abolish- 
ed in England until 1102, by the council of London, and in Ire- 
land, until 1 1 72, by the council of Armagh. As a matter of 
admonition, if not for history, let me here state that when, in 
451, or 456, in the council of St. Patrick, held in Ireland, there 
was a proposition from some of the clergy to induce slaves to 
run away, the thirty-second canon of that council was expressly 
issued, ordaining, that to steal slaves, by inducing them to run 
away, was to expose the clergy to be considered as thieves and 
robbers. The Church, then, while sapping the foundations of 
slavery, expressly forbade all violence— all wrong. 

BUT THE REPUBLIC MUST BE HOMOGENEOUS. 

But homogeneity, we are told, must exist through the hitherto 
thirty-four States of this Union. The Union cannot exist tin- 



less we are a homogeneous people. Xo matter whether slavery 
be right or wrong, Christian or unchristian, it must be 
abolished, we are told, this day and this hour, in order to 
make us a homogeneous, a united, a one and indivisible people. 
Sir, homogeneity can never exist in a great nation, among a 
great people. Look at the great nations now covering large 
extents of the globe. There is the Russian empire— what an 
empire! what different institutions, what various tribes! How 
unlike unlike, in manners, unlike in character, frequently un- 
like in origin. And there is the great empire of Austria, 
which, stretching from Italy to Hungary, contains races of all 
varieties of character. Twelve different languages are spoken 
in that empire, and its institutions are as diverse as can well 
be imagined; its people are unlike, various and different — 
more different than any people that exist in this country. And 
there is Switzerland, too, the only republic existing in Europe, 
except that little one perched on the Apennines— an old repub- 
lic of twenty-five cantons, in which are spoken three different 
languages— the Italian, the German, and the French — the 
debates, at times, in their general congress going on in all 
these three tongues. The habits, the customs, the costumes, 
too, of the Swiss are more or less diverse. The canton of Zug 
varies more from the canton of Xeufchatel than Massachusetts 
from South Carolina. The religion is Catholic and Protestant, 
and Protestant of various creeds and characters, and yet in 
that republic no effort whatsoever has been made by that 
republican people to have homogeneous institutions or one peo- 
ple alike in all respects as to their character. 

XO HOMOGENEITY IN THE BRITISH EMPIRE. 

Thon there is Great Britain, that vast empire which stretches 
from the arctic regions of the north to the Ganges and the 
Himalaya mountains, and which rules even in India over a 
hundred millions of people — an empire, in short, embracing 
one-seventh part of the globe, and governing one-seventh of 
all mankind — what empire is more tolerant than that in its 
diverse ami varied institutions? There is Catholic Canada, 
with French institutions yet existing there, and with no light 
of trial by jury among many portions of the people of Canada. 
In India there are diverse and innumerable religions and peo- 



pies ; the Hindoos, the Mahomedans, the Buddhists, &c: I 
should but consume time were I even to enumerate them. No 
nation has been more tolerant of religion, of prejudices, of 
politics, and passions, than the British people have been. This 
vast empire of Britain has only been maintained by the tolerant 
spirit of the British Parliament and the British Government, 
extending throughout the whole earth, in all the varied domains 
of that vast empire. No effort has ever been made in England 
by any edict of the British Parliament at any time, or on any 
occasion, to have a homogeneous people. There is no centrali- 
zation, no consolidation there. Even when the Sepoy went to 
war, civil war, against the empire of Great Britain, because 
he was compelled to bite greased cartridges contrary to his 
religion, the empire and authorities of Great Britain respected 
the miserable prejudices of that Sepoy, and abolished the order 
to use cartridges supposed to be greased with the fat of the cow 
and hog. Even in the little islands of Great Britain and Ire- 
land there is no homogeneity there. There is the Celt who 
speaks one tongue across the Irish Channel; there is the 
Welshman who looks over across that Channel, and speaks 
another tongue ; then, there are Englishmen with their various 
dialects in Lancashire and Yorkshire, and in other counties ; 
and there are the Gaels in Scotland who speak a language 
utterly incomprehensible to the great mass of the English peo- 
ple. Any man who has traveled over that country, as I did 
twenty-five years ago, with a pack upon my back, throughout 
the whole of Lancashire and Yorkshire, can bear testimony to 
this fact, that in a day's or half a day's travel among the peo- 
ple in that part of the country, you pass among men whose 
institutions not only differ far more than the institutions of the 
North, and the South, but you go among a people speaking a 
language not only incomprehensible to you, but to those who 
are upon their borders. So, any traveler who passes beyond 
the Lowlands, perhaps with some Lady of the Lake for his 
guide book, into the Highlands of Scotland, will soon find that 
as he goes north from Stirling castle he goes among a foreign 
people, with foreign institutions, speaking tongues far different 
from those of the great majority of the English people. The 
wise people of England, that wise Government of England, 
have never attempted to force homogeneity of institutions ; 



never, throughout that vast empire, while even in their own 
little islands they have respected the rights, the privileges, the 
prerogatives ol' the Welsh, the Celts, the Gaels, and those 
other varieties of men; and it is only by this spirit of tolera- 
tion, this noble spirit oi" toleration, this worthy conciliatory 
spirit of the nation, that the British empire has been able to 
Btretch its power beyond its own little domain all over the 
earth, encircling the globe, as has been well said, by its martial 
airs that greet the rising of the morning sun. 

THE ROMAN EMPIRE NOT HOMOGENEOUS. 

Homogeneity never existed throughout the vast Roman em- 
pire. It was not attempted by the dictators of Rome; and it 
never was attempted subsequently by the emperors of Rome. 
But autonomy, or self-independence, was the principle on 
which the great Roman Empire was reared and maintained, 
ami not only so, but it was the only principle on which 
that Government was enabled to sustain itself in its vast ag- 
gregation of territory. When Julius Caesar conquered the 
Gauls, he did not take away from the barbarian people of 
Gaul, their institutions, their self-government, the government 
of their chieftains. He left all that to them. And when 
Pompey invaded the Asiatic cities and subjected them to the 
Roman empire, he left to those Asiatic cities the government 
and control of their own local institutions, their self-gov- 
ernment, and in that manner, attached them to the empire. 
To the Ionians were reserved their archons and prytanes ; to 
the Dorians, their ephori and cosmi; aye, to all the Grecian 
cities ami States, more or less, their local institutions, their 
magistrates, their self-government, their peculiar institutions. 
Coining was allowed to some ; fiscal regulations to others. 
Cm i federations were allowed to exist in Greece long after the 
domination of the Roman empire. There was not only the 
well known Amphictionic, but the Panionian, the Boeotian, the 
Achean. Autonomy, as far as possible, homogeneity seldom, if 
ever, was the Roman rule. The self-government of the sub- 
ject States was as much as possible preserved. Their local 
institutions were maintained and invigorated. And it was by 
the preservation of their self-government, and of those local 
institutions, that the vast empire of Rome was maintained for 



9 

so many years, and was perpetuated from age to age, often 
even under the worst of emperors. 

I am calling the attention of the House, Mr. Chairman, to 
these historical facts, because they are so well applicable to our 
times, and to our day, History but repeats itself. There is 
but little new in the history of man. Man but repeats over 
what preceding man has done. The great Augustus Csesar, 
whose empire stretched in the west from the pillars of Hercules 
to the Tigris and Euphrates in the east, from the hundred- 
gated Thebes in the south to the Ultima Thule of Britain in 
the North, embracing an empire so vast that Ovid wrote of it, 
when Jupiter looked out from the portals of heaven, he saw 
nothing but what was Roman, — 

Jupiter arce sua totum cum spectat in orbem 
Nil nisi Romanum quod tueatur babet, 

That great founder of the Roman empire over millions of 
human beings, that wise and wonderful man, never attempted 
any homogeneity of institutions. But throughout all that vast 
territory, as far as possible, there was left to the people of the 
empire their autonomy or self-government, their local institu- 
tions. The Parthian, the Indian, the Scythian, the Sarmatian, 
the Briton, the Egyptian, each and all had reserved to them 
their local institutions, their local religions, their local govern- 
ments. The gods of Egypt and the gods of Gaul, the gods of 
Athens and the gods of Asia, were worshipped, if not in the 
capitol of Rome, at least in its close vicinity. And Augustus 
Caesar himself caused sacrifices to be offered in the holy temple 
of the living God, at Jerusalem. All religions, all policies, 
more or less, were tolerated, only in subordination to the great 
head of the Empire at Rome. It was the foundation of that 
empire in the spirit of toleration that kept it together for 
hundreds and hundreds of years, and which made the name of 
Caesar illustrious, not only throughout the whole land, but sent 
down that name immortal for all posterity as the name for czars 
and kaisers in the royal houses of kings and emperors. Nor did 
the Empire crumble and fall, until the Caesars' policy was forgot- 
ten, and homogeneity was forced upon the different Peoples. 

CENTRALIZATION, CONSOLIDATE "::;, IS DESPOTISM. 

I repeat then, that if we pay attention to the teachings, to 
these examples of history, we must see that homogeneity is not 
1* 



10 

a possible condition for a great people. Centralization, con- 
solidation, are the English words which we substitute for the 
term homogeneity. Centralization, consolidation is nothing 
but unlimited despotism. There is no freedom for the people, 
no Belf-government, no municipal government, no household 
government, no family government under such a system. 
There is no government worthy of a free people ; there is 
no government which can maintain the rights and preroga- 
tives of the people but one which shall be founded on some 
other principle than that of consolidation and centralization. 
It was not possible for Rome ; it was not possible for Athens ; 
it will not be possible for the Government at Washington, with 
all the telescopes that men may mount upon the lofty dome of 
the Capitol, to look over our vast territory from the Passama- 
quoddy to the Rio Grande and Oregon, and to regulate the 
local rights and privileges of the millions and millions of 
people that not only exist now, but are hereafter to exist 
there. Even the Puritans taught us a better lesson than 
consolidation and centralization, though their sons have 
forgotten that lesson. Liberty was cradled in their muni- 
cipal institutions ; liberty is cradled in the family, in the 
county, the town, the city, and the State, and not in Federal 
Central Government. The Federal Government is to maintain 
liberty, but it is not its birth-place, its cradle, its nursing 
mother. For the cradle of human liberty, I repeat, is in the 
household, in the family, in the home, in the city, the county, 
and the State ; and wherever other institutions, the product of 
centralization or consolidation, exist, as in France or Russia, 
there must exist despotism. 

TWO FATAL ERRORS — A SHORT CIVIL WAR AND SUBJUGATION. 

Now I have dwelt thus long on this subject in order to ap- 
proach another topic, and that is to say that if this homogeneity, 
this centralization, is persisted in, this war must go on until 
the subjugation of the South follows. In my judgment no two 
more fatal errors exist, or have existed, or can exist, than that 
this i- to be a Bhort civil war, or, that our hitherto southern coun- 
tryiiK'ii can ever lie subjugated to an empire of centralization 
and consolidation. Civil wars are never short when a people 
uru in earnest, as the people of the North and the people of 



11 

the South are now ; we, in earnest for anti-slavery and conso- 
lidation ; they, in earnest, as they say, for the maintenance of 
self-government. No war like that can be ended in ninety 
days, or in a summer's campaign, but it is to be a war of years 
and years. Whatever we may say of the South, the earnest- 
ness of that people, their indomitable and fiery character, show 
that in a war to subjugate them extermination must follow. 

All civil wars of like character, and waged with like spirit, 
have lasted for years. The Peloponnesian war lasted twenty- 
seven years, and ended in the ruin of Greece. The civil wars 
of Rome lasted for years and years. The wars of the houses 
of York and Lancaster lasted thirty years. The war of the 
German Confederates lasted thirty years ; and for half a cen- 
tury and over, raged the civil war in Holland and the Nether- 
lands, when an effort was made by the King of Spain, under 
the Duke of Alva, to subjugate the people of Holland and the 
Netherlands to the Inquisition and taxation of Spain. All his- 
tory shows that our civil war is to be long, aye, endless, if it 
is to be conducted in the spirit in which it is conducted now. 
It is not to be a war, then, of ninety days, nor of four years 
nor of this Administration alone ; but it is to be a war to be 
passed on, from Administration to Administration, throughout all 
time, until the spirit of toleration is once more revived in this 
country, and we learn to revere the lessons our fathers left to us. 

The subjugation of eight millions of people ! It is an utter 
impossibility ; it cannot be done. The outward man may be 
subjugated. He may be made to bend, to cringe, to bow, aye, 
even to take mock oaths of allegiance. With bayonets sur- 
rounding him, you may for a time take from him all outward 
manliness. But the spirit within him, with which God has in- 
spired him, can never be subjugated by mortal man. The soul 
is indomitable, although you may force the outward profession 
of obedience. This subjugation can not be even apparently 
perfected but by the constant outward exhibit of bayonets. 
And whenever that exhibit is withdrawn, insurrection and 
armed rebellion will follow. This nation may be made a na- 
tion of soldiers, but if it be made a nation of soldiers altogether, 
I repeat again, that men of our kith and kin, men of our blood 
and our soul, men educated in our institutions, and inspired by 
the education which has been given to us by our ancestors. 



12 

Buch men, whether right or wrong, can never be subjugated. God 
never made the race we are born of, to be subjects or slaves. 

All Europe France, England, Russia, all combined — can 
never Bubdue my own native State of Maine. You may drive 
the people from their coast, but they will rush to the mountains; 
you may desolate their hills and their valleys, but the spirit of 
the brave people of that gallant State can never, never be sub- 
jugated by the whole earth combined. Eight millions of like 
men, for like we are, with the same blood coursing in our veins, 
and spread over territory reaching from the Potomac to the 
Rio Grande, never, never can be subjugated by men of the 
same kith and kin. Not only human courage, but climate, soil, 
and a territory fortified by swamp and forest and malaria all 
forbid. Every wood in Virginia is a fortress. Every swamp 
in Carolina and Georgia is a line of circuinvallation. The 
vastness of the territory to be subjugated is its great defense. 
Marion and Sumpter in the swamps of South Carolina kept at 
bay for months the finest infantry of England, under Lord 
Rawdon, and the best cavalry in the world under Colonel Tar- 
leton. 

I know that these truths are unpalatable ; but it is quite 
time that they should be preached to our countrymen even if 
they do not like them. Strike but hear. They are not new. 
They have all been preached in the English tongue before, and 
in another great civil war. I speak but the words which our 
English ancestors upon their side of the ocean spoke in the days 
of the re volution, when they said that three millions of Eng- 
lishmen in the American colonies of Great Britain could never, 
never be subjugated by the armed empire of England. Sub- 
jugation they pronounced to be utterly impossible, in 1774-75, 
as I pronounce it now, in 1864. 

BUT WHAT AKE WE TO DO? 

But I am asked, " What are we to do ? Are we to submit 
to rebels and the rebellion? Are we to lie down and let the 
rebels of the South ride over us? Are we to give up this great 
contest, and to surrender our holy Union, and our sagrcd insti* 
fcntion?" I snv. never; no, never! Never, I repeat — never, 
are we to surrender the institutions that our fathers bequeathed 
us, or the unity that they bestowed upon us. But we are to 



13 

resort to their lessons and their instructions for the salvation, 
the redemption, and the reintegration of this Union. What 
the people of the North desire is reunion and peace'. What 
the people of the South desire is peace, not with dishonor, but 
peace with honor. We both desire peace ; and why not, then, 
try to agree upon terms ? Negotiation is the preliminary step 
to reconciliation. This is the lesson that our fathers have be- 
queathed to us. Convention, consultation— these are the great 
pervading principles of our Government, and the only princi- 
ples upon which that Government can be maintained and 
handed down to our children, unless we intend to be eternally 



THE CIVIL WAR OP THE REVOLUTION — THE COUNSELS OF CHATHAM, 
BURKE, FOX, AND OTHERS. 

Tell me not that I am premature in these remarks. They 
are the words of Burke, and Fox, and Chatham, and Camden, 
and other illustrious Englishmen in the beginning of the Revo- 
lution, in 1772, in 1774, in 1776, and until the treaty of peace 
in 1783. Let me call the attention of this House and of the 
country to some of the motions made in the British Parliament 
prior to the outbreak of our Revolution in 1776, and pending 
that Revolution. 

In 1774, April 15, Lord North introduced into the House of 
Commons a bill to provide for the trial of Boston people who 
might be charged with violating the laws of England, not in 
Massachusetts, not in Boston, but providing for taking them to 
England and elsewhere to be tried. Loud was the remonstrance 
from Boston, and from Massachusetts generally, and from all 
parts of this then colonial country. But Lord North was sus- 
tained ; the bill was carried in the House of Commons by a vote 
of 127 to 44, and in the House of Lords by a vote of 49 to 12. 

In 1774, April 19, there was introduced a motion to repeal 
the tea duty, and Edmund Burke seconded that resolution. But 
Burke and those who agreed with him did not succeed. The 
people of England were no more willing to reason then, than 
the people of the North or South are willing to reason now. 
The proposition was voted down — ayes 49, noes 182. 

In 1774, November 30, in the new Parliament, the king sent 
in a speech adverse to the colonies — utterly adverse to their 



14 

right to control their local institutions, their right of local self- 
government. There was great debate upon that ; but the ad- 
dress was carried in the House of Commons by a vote of 264 
to 73, and in the House of Lords by a vote of 63 to 13. 

In 1775, January 20, in the beginning of the outbreak of 
our Revolution, Lord Chatham made his great effort in the 
House of Lords to have the British troops withdrawn from the 
city of Boston — to stop fighting, for fighting had begun in the 
city of Boston, and to try consultation and conciliation with 

the g i people of .Massachusetts, in order to avoid the effusion 

of human blood. But Lord Chatham if heard was not heeded. 
The proposition was voted down (as a like proposition has been 
voted down in this House) by a vote of 68 to 18. On that 
occasion Lord Chatham said : 

" Resistance to your act was as necessary as it was just, and your declara- 
tion of the omnipotence of Parliament, and your imperious doctrine of the 
necessity of suhmission, will he found equally incompetent to convince or 
enslave your fellow-subjects in America, who feel that tyranny, whether 
ambitioned by an individual part of the Legislature or the bodies who com- 
pose it, is equally intolerable to British subjects. 

" I trust it is obvious to your lordships that all attempts to impose servi- 
tude upon such men, to establish despotism over such a mighty continental 
nation, must be vain, must be fatal. We shall be forced ultimately to re- 
tract. Let us retract while we can, not when we must." 

The proposition of Lord Chatham was supported by Lords 
Shelburne, Camden, Rockingham and Richmond, but was sup- 
ported in vain. The British ministry was deaf to the eloquence 
of Chatham, and deaf to the reasoning of the surrounding 
nobility. 

Lord Chatham then took another step. He proposed, if the 
colonies would recognize the supreme government of England, 
to invite from the colonies a free gift or revenue, but this was 
rejected by a vote of 61 to 32. 

In 1775, January 29, there appeared before the British Par- 
liament, claiming a hearing, the illustrious Franklin, the well 
known Butler, and the distinguished Lee. They asked to be 
heard at the bar of the House of Commons in behalf of the 
colonies of the United States, but they were not heard. They 
were refused a hearing because the British Parliament would 
not recognize the legal existence of any Congress of the United 
States. 

In 1775, February 2, Lord North moved his address to the 



15 

King against the colonies; Fox moved to amend that by cen- 
suring the ministry, but he failed by a vote of 304 to 105. The 
address was carried by a vote in the House of Commons of 296 
to 106, and in the House of Lords, of 87 to 27. 

In 1775, March 22, Burke proposed concession, conciliation, 
and addressed the House on the subject. He was heard un- 
doubtedly with far less patience than I am heard here to-day. 
His motion Avas rejected — 270 to 78. Lord North then ex- 
claimed — and the like of which we often hear on the floor of 
this House — that Burke was but helping the rebellion. 

In 1776, Congress petitioned the king to be heard, and the 
petition was rejected, as from an illegal body. 

The Duke of Grafton then left the party in power, and join- 
ed the opposition. The address to the king, however, was car- 
ried by a vote in the House of Commons, of 1 76 to 72, and in 
the House of Lords, of 75 to 32. 

Burke then proposed conciliation again, and asked for the 
calling of a congress by royal authority to settle the difficulties. 
His proposition was lost by a large majority. It is a proposi- 
tion it seems to me, at this time, in the omnipotence of our pow- 
er, and the abundance of our victories, which ought to come — I 
will not say from this, but from the other side of the House — 
that there may be consultation with the people of the South, to 
see whether this horrible effusion of human blood cannot be stop- 
ped. But the proposition of Burke was lost by a large major- 
ity, although it was supported by Barre, Fox, and others ; and 
Lord North was said, at heart, to favor Burke. 

Lord North, however, soon after, as an organ of the king and 
ministry, introduced a bill prohibiting intercourse with the co- 
lonies. Martial law was proposed, and the proposition was 
carried by a vote of 112 to 16 in the House of Commons, and 
78 to 19 in the House of Lords. And it was about that time 
that the British ministry resolved not to trust to the people of 
England, of Scotland, and of Ireland for the restoration of har- 
mony and peace, but to rely upon the Hessians. The Land- 
grave of Hesse-Cassel furnished 12,104 ; the Duke of Brunswick 
4,084 ; the Prince of Hesse, 668 ; and the Prince of Walcleck, 
670 — 17,526 Hessians in all. This proposition to employ these 
Hessians was carried in the House of Commons by a vote of 242 
to 88. There exists at this time in Hesse-Cassel a beautiful pal- 



16 

lace, with beautiful grounds, called "Wilhemshoe, which surpas- 
ses in my judgment, Versailles even, built by the purchase-money 
of these ll.--.ians -nioiH'v thus obtained from the British trea- 
sury, but no Englishman looks at it, beautiful as it is, without 
the blush of shame, that the money of England was used to em- 
ploy Hessians to subjugate the colonies. 

In 1778, after Burgoyne's defeat, the people of England, for 
the first time, began to have some sense of the magnitude of the 
war they were undertaking, — 

Mr. BEOOMALL. — Let me ask the gentleman, whether those 
movements to which he is referring, did not lead to the success 
of- the rebellion in the colonies. 

Mr. Brooks. — 1 will say to the gentleman, that Lord North, 
the Earl of Temple, and the Tories of England generally, used 
the very words that we have heard so often on the other side of 
the House — "You are helping the rebellion." But if these 
men had been heard and heeded in the beginning of the Ameri- 
can Revolution, there would have been no war. If the wisdom 
of Chatham had been confided in, the colonics would not have 
rebelled, and there would have been no separation from Great 
Britain. It was because the people of England and the minis- 
try would not listen to the admonitions of these wise statesmen 
that the empire was broken up ; and we became independent 
States instead of loyal colonies. 

After the defeat of Burgoyne, there once more arose a great 
debate in the British Parliament, in which Fox and Germaine 
participated. The words of Fox were admonitory, and so well 
worth remembering, that I will read them. Fox was compar- 
ing Germaine to Dr. Sangrado : — 

" Bleeding, he said, has been his only prescription. For two years that he 
hae presided over the American affairs, the most violent, scalping, tomahawk- 
ing measures have been taken. If a people deprived of their ancient rights, 
have grown tumultuous, bleed them. If they are attacked with a spirit of 
insurrection, bleed them. If their fever should have run into rebellion, bleed 
them, oriefl the State physician. More blood! More blood! Still more 
blood !" 

This was the remedy of Lord Germaine. 1 will not say it is 
the only remedy of any member upon the floor of this House of 
( longrees. 

THE PERIL OP FOREIGN INTERVENTION. 

In 1778, Lord North, now awakened to the perils of the em- 



17 

pire proposed a consultation, but it was then too late. He pro- 
posed to repeal every anti-colonial act of Great Britain from 
1763 to 1778, and he proposed to treat the Congress of the co- 
lonies as a body to be consulted. But it was too late. And 
here, I beg, gentlemen upon the other side, to recall history, to 
be admonished by it, for history in this day is but a repetition 
of the past. Holland, and France and Spain were awakening, 
and Franklin, and Laurens, and Lee, and others, were in con- 
sultation with these rivals of the English monarch, and those mo- 
narchies were prepared to interfere in the contest between Eng- 
land and these colonies. Our Congress, aware of its strength, 
for the first time, refused to listen to Lord North. So the storm 
may be gathering now. Yes, the storm is gathering beyond the 
Rio Grande — a foreboding storm — and the empire of France, 
established there through Maximilian, will soon be stretching 
its vast arms over the Rio Grande, and interfering with these 
States of America. 

But before anybody has interfered — before England, or any 
Holland, or Spain, or France has interfered, I beseech my coun- 
trymen, in view of these lessons of history, in the spirit of for- 
bearance and conciliation, to endeavor to end this war, now — 
when we are strong, and when no foreign arm is actually up- 
raised, the more to rend asunder the Union. 

Commissioners were sent to Philadelphia, but sent in vain. 
The emissaries of France were in Philadelphia, not to heal the 
breach, but to widen it, and in 1788, England was obliged to 
grant to these colonies their independence. I advise no such 
grant ; I desire the acceptance of no such proposition. I am in- 
disposed ever to receive such a proffer of peace as that ; but at 
this day, and at this hour, holding up the lessons of history, I 
beseech this honorable House to study these lessons of history 
before it is too late, and secure a peace when it can be done by 
mingled kindness and conciliation, as well as by force of arms. 

A COLLOQUY WITH THE KEPUBLICANS. 

Mr. Wilson. I desire to ask the gentleman a question: 
Suppose the Government of the Confederate States should 
adopt the plan he suggests for restoring peace to the country, 
and that plan should fail, is the gentleman ready then to wage 
war against this rebellion until it shall have been crushed and 



18 

the authority of the Government maintained ; or, would he 
then acknowledge the independence of the rebel States ? 

Mr. BROOKS. Never will I consent to acknowledge their 
independence. We are one people, one country, and have one 
destiny: it is written by the finger of Omnipotence, — 

Mr. Wilson. With all respect to the gentleman from New 
York. 1 desire an answer. 1 wish to know whether, if these 
means Bhould fail, the gentleman would then be willing towage 
this war for the suppression of the rebellion ? If not what 
means would the gentleman have the Government adopt ? 

Mr. BROOKS. I am coming to that. 1 was about to say 
when the gentleman interrupted me, that God made this for 
one country. Omnipotence seems to have written out for it 
one destiny and one law. It is written out in the rock-ribbed 
Alleghanies, which extend from the Hudson almost to the Mis- 
sissippi ; it is written out on the great father of the Avaters, 
with its hundred thousand miles of navigation. We are made 
for one people, and what God has put together no man can 
put asunder. 

But war, war is not the remedy; it is not the Christian, it 
is not the civilized remedy, for this disaster and trouble in 
which we are involved at the present hour. Our first duty is 
to try conciliation and kindness ; our first duty is to imitate 
the proposition of Burke in the British Parliament — negocia- 
tion. If we offer negociation, and the South refuse to hear ne- 
gotiation upon just and equitable terms, the South will be 
divided and we shall be united. The war will then be there, a 
war at the ballot box, and in the Southern country ; and not as 
now, a war of blood and devastation. Our remedy is not the 
sword, it is not the cartridge-box, until all other remedies 
whatsoever have been exhausted. 

Then, as Christians, if we are Christians, or profess Chris- 
tianity, our first duty to God, our first duty to our institutions, 
is to assemble in convention and to try reconciliation. 

[Here the hammer fell, Mr. Brooks' allotted hour having ex- 
pi ml. i 

Mr. Brooks. 1 Bhould like to have a little more time to con- 
clude my remarks. 

Mr. GARFIELD, of Ohio, (Rep.) 1 move that the gentleman 
have leave to go on. 



19 

The Chairman. Leave can be granted by unanimous con- 
sent. 

No objection was made. 

Mr. Brooks. Whenever the day and hour come when Chris- 
tianity fails to restore peace, when the example of our fathers, 
who, in like cases, assembled in convention, fails to restore 
peace, I shall be ready to mark out the course that I will pursue, 
and I tell the honorable gentleman again, that I never, never 
will consent to a severance of this Union. I wish to be under- 
stood, not only here, but everywhere. I wish my voice, if pos- 
sible, to be heard South as well as North. Every human effort 
that can be made by the arts of peace should be made, and if 
the Union cannot be restored exactly as it was, in the same 
words and in the same letters, I am prepared for some other 
bargain which will again be satisfactory to all sections of this 
Union. 

Mr. Wilson. I desire to ask whether, in any event, under 
any circumstances, the gentleman is in favor of maintaining the 
Union by war against the rebellion ? 

Mr. Brooks. — I repeat that under no circumstances will 1 
ever consent to ask for a passport to go to Mount Vernon or 
Monticello, or to the tomb of Marshall, or to demand one to 
go to Concord and Lexington and Bunker Hill. Under no 
circumstances, if I descend or ascend the Mississippi, will I 
ever consent to have my baggage examined by the officers of a 
foreign country upon the banks of that river. 
' Mr. Wilson. — I submit that the gentleman has not answered 
my question directly. I ask again whether the gentleman is 
willing, under any circumstances, to secure to himself the enjoy- 
ment of the privilege he has mentioned through force of arms 
against the rebellion? 

Mr. Brooks. — If it be necessary; if the South has no reason; 
3 f it will hear nothing of peace ; if it will obstruct the Missis- 
sippi and the Chesapeake, and is determined to take from us 
the rights which we have had from our ancestors, then a new case 
will arise ; but until that case arises in the rebellion, I do not 
propose to mark out the course which I will pursue hereafter. 

Mr. Wilson I now ask if in any event, in the new case, he 

would then be willing to wage war against those now in rebel- 
lion against the authority of the Government ? 



20 

Mr. Brooks. — I do not believe that after any of these efforts 
for peace there would be any such Qew rase. But, on the con- 
trary, it' the war should be persisted in, I am ready and willing 
to maintain those rights as they have been handed down to us 
by oui ancestors. 1 know the astuteness of the gentleman from 
Iowa, and 1 Bee the coterie of claquers by which he is surrounded 
in this effort to catechise me. 

Mr. I'.oitwi;].!.. 1 .all the gentleman to order. 

Mb. Beooks. 1 am afraid the gentleman does not give a 
right interpretation to my words. I mean nothing objection- 
able to the gentleman. 1 do not wish to say anything that may 
be offensive. 1 think 1 have expressed myself clearly. What 
1 object to is laying down what I would do in a certain contin- 
: because what may happen hereafter I cannot say. I 
camioi lay down a programme for the future; but as explicitly 
as a man can say it, 1 have said, and repeat, that under no 
circumstances will I ever consent to a severance of the Union 
of these States. 

Mr. Wilson. — But the gentleman did state a case which 
may occur in the future, and 1 ask him again, in the event of 
that ease occurring, is he willing to meet it by force of arms ? 

Mr. Brooks. — Whenever the South refuses all proffers of 
peace whatsoever, I am ready, upon the reserved rights of this 
nation, to maintain its legitimate constitutional authority by 
force of arms. [Several members, — " Now you've got it."] 
There may be various ways of settling the difficulties with the 
South ; even the slave question may be got over. The honor- 
able gentleman from Wisconsin may be gratified by refusing 
the South the right of representation for its slaves on the 
three-fifths principle. 1 think the South would willingly con- 
sent to that, and have every negro there count one as at the 
North. I think that the subject of the fugitive slave law, 
which is s<> offensive to the great mass of the northern people, 
may be arranged, I sec no essential difficulty in that. 

The great object in the formation of the Union was com- 
merce and trade. Commerce and trade formed this Union, 
not patriotism altogether. It was because of the difficulty of 
bavin-- an equal system of duties between Rhode Island, and 
New York, ami Connecticut, and between Annapolis, in Mary- 
land, and the eastern coast of Virginia, so as to have one 
commerce, that this Con-titution was made. 



21 

We might have a Zollverein, as they have in Germany, for 
the collection of our duties. All these difficulties that exist 
now between ourselves and our Southern countrymen might be 
adjusted in convention, by peaceable negotiation. But as I 
have shown before by the example of nations that have gone 
before us, in my judgmpnt, they can never be adjusted by arms. 
Jn the end, as the President of the United States said in his 
inaugural address, we must come to terms by negotiation. 

Mr. Kasson. — Will the gentleman from New York, with a 
view to get his opinion on the subject, permit me to ask him a 
question ? 

Mr. Brooks. — Certainly. 

Mr. Kasson. — It is this. The gentleman from New York 
has run a parallel, instead of a contrast, between this cause- 
less and infamous rebellion, and that of our fathers against 
the English government, for a cause which they avowed with a 
list of their grievances. He now asserts it as a fact that, with 
a proper proffer of terms on our part, the Union can be re- 
stored. I ask him to give to the House the benefit of his 
information on that point. What evidence has he got that the 
South will come back into the Union on any terms consistent 
with the preservation of the Constitution and the Union? 
The evidence is what I desire. 

Mr. Brooks. — What evidence could I have ? If 1 should 
speak to any Southern man, or, if I should write to any South- 
ern man, I should, in doing so, be violating the laws of the 
country. I am forbidden by law to write to any man in the 
South. I cannot commune with any body there. That is one 
of the difficulties of our position. 

Mr. Kasson. — The distinguished gentleman from New 
York has affirmed the fact that peace can be restored on that 
basis. I wish the evidence of the fact on which the whole 
argument rests. 

Mr. Brooks. — Suppose we try. At an early, period of the 
war a gentleman from the State of Georgia, well known in 
this House, a gentleman who is now vice-president of the so- 
called southern confederacy, made an effort to be heard in the 
interest of peace, and was refused an audience. Another ef- 
fort was made from the Canadian frontier, but the President 
of the United States did not permit it to come to any conclu- 



sion. Under the laws of our country, 1 repeat, it is impossible 
fur an individual Legitimately to obtain Information from the 
southern country. Sence it is impossible fur me to answer the 
question of the gentleman from lowu. All that 1 can Bay is 
try, try. \i' we succeed, immortality will rest upon our efforts, 
if we fail, we shall be righl a.- againsl the South, and the re- 
sponsibility will be on southern heads. 

Me. £asson. Do I understand the gentleman from New 
York to Bay thai any authorized commission to treat for peace 
,iu the basis of the Qnion has ever been refused to be received 
by this Government, either from Canada, Portress Monroe, or 
elsewhere any authorized commission to treat for peace on 
the basis of the CJnion '. 

.Mi:. Brooks.— Mr. Stephens, of Georgia, had a commission, 
which was understood to be for peace, and he was not received. 

Mb. KASSON.— It is denied by the head of the rebel govern- 
ment himself. 

Mn. Brooks.— And'is affirmed by Mr. Stephens in a speech 
which he lias made iu tin- South. 

Mi:. &ASSON. 1 have not seen that speech. 1 differ with 
the gentleman from New York on the point of fact. 

oppositioh a.nu proposition. 

Mr. Ukooks. Mr. Chairman, 1 am well aware that at this 
period of the history of the country it is in vain to make BUCh 
hes as 1 am now making. I am not tu be heard or heeded 
in the passion that now governs this country. 1 speak now, 
not for ih- present moment, but to sow the seeds of thoughl 
and of consideration for the people of this great country. I scat- 
ter facts, now, to be considered and dwelt upon hereafter, and 

1 hope that the) will lead to reflection throughout the cm. try. 

1 bope the Republican side of the House will i berish 

that feeling againsl us on this Bide of the House in which they 

have hitherto indulged. We desire Union as much as they do : 

but we do not see, in their mode and manner of obtaining that 

Qnion, any good result possible, and we do not believe thai it 

,'. l address my remarks to the Bouse, in accord- 

. with my purpose, to try and produce some community of 

feeling, Borne community of action, which may, hereafter, be 

al to our constituents, if 1 were acting the mere role of 



23 

an Opposition member, I should do nothing but throw obstacles 
in the way of the other side of the House ; but I hold it to be 
the duty of a man in the Opposition to propose as well as to 
oppose ; and hence the propositions which I have put out. 

APPEAL TO NEW ENGLAND MEN. 

No man on that side of the House, I call God to witness, 
desires the reunion of these States more ardently than I desire 
it. No man would make greater sacrifices than 1 would make 
to restore peace and harmony to this now bleeding country. 
„But I speak in vain. I am in a minority on the floor of this 
flJHouse, and shall be, in a greater minority hereafter. I can only 
appeal to my countrymen, to their good feeling, to their reason 
and their sense. To them I appeal as to Americans having a 
great history, not now, 1 trust, to end. I appeal more especi- 
ally to New England men, for independence, self-action, and 
individuality upon the floor. 1 appeal to that State in which 1 
was born — the State of Massachusetts — which sometimes thinks 
and acts for herself, independent even of party chains. Let 
her step forth and act now on this great occasion, and immor- 
talize herself, as she has heretofore. 

There was a period in the history of Massachusetts when 
^ that State, great and powerful in her control over the Revolu- 
I tion of 1776, forgetting the rival claims of her own eminent 
| sons, and even forgetful of Massachusetts herself, through the 
voice of John Adams, nominated a slaveholder, George Wash- 
ington, of Virginia, to be Commander-in-Chief of the Armies 
of the United States. It is in that spirit that I invoke Massa- 
| chusetts men to act now ; I implore Massachusetts men to look 
| back to these antecedents of their history and emulate the glory 
I of that era. And I appeal to other New England men on the 
floor of this House; even to those who come from the far dis- 
tant shores of the Pacific, I thus appeal, because this govern- 
ment is now a New England Government and in the main in 
the hands of New England men. 

Throughout the long regions of the lakes, across the Rocky 
Mountains, the New England element governs and controls this 
country. I appeal, therefore, to the three New England men 
from the State of Iowa, and to the honorable gentleman now in 
the chair (Mr. Washburne), the leading member from the State 
of Illinois. I appeal to the honorable gentlemen from Penn- 



24 

sylvania (Mr. Stevens), the monitor and mentor of this House. 
who was bora among the green mountains of Vermont, and 
who exercises bo omnipotent an influence in controlling the de- 
liberations of this body: to him 1 appeal for support of this 
(Hurt to bring peace again to our people. Letus try to do honor 
i" New England men ami New England history, forgetful of all 
the provincialisms which have been fostered by this civil war. 
iible, accomplish the restoration of this Union. 

AX APPEAL TO THE PRESIDENT. 

Oh ! thai it was within my power to go within the portals oi 
the White Bouse, and to approach the Chief Magistrate there: 
I would do, what, alas! as an impenitent sinner, I dare not do 
to my Maker — on bended knees, implore him in his now almost 
boundless authority to exercise all the powers of Christianity, 
all the lessons, ail the arts of peace for the restoration of this 
now divided and broken Onion, and to stop the further effusion 
of human blood. In the name of that great patriot whom we 
once in common revered, whose voice has been so often heard 
deliberations of this Capitol, in the name of Henry Clay, 
in whose company, in the better days of the Republic, we both 
marched together, I would invoke him to remember the history 
f of that great man. 

Thrice by efforts of conciliation he averted the horrors of 
civil war. First upon the Missouri question in 1820, then in 
1832, in the Senate, by his action upon the tariff, in eloquence 
which stirred the nation's heart, and which then had a control- 
ling influence over both Houses of Congress, he again stopped 
the threatened effusion of human blood. And in the great 
compromise questions of 1850, by his eloquence, his power, his 
wisdom, his social influence, as well as by hie induration in de- 
bate, by the respeel which all portions of this country had for 
that greal ami illustrious man, civil war was again averted 
from this unhappy land. 

Oh, that I could approach the White House, and repeat to 
tin- Chief Magistrate the lessons of our illustrious leader, and 
him to follow his illustrious example, and to do himself 
the immortal honor, to be, not the last President of the L'nited 
States, fat the Baviour and restorer of this divided, di 
and bleeding I'nion. 



H ■ 80 







yj&kr. 






* ^ 




cP/l^% «* 







*°* 







D*. *«n ^ 










*^* 











<K * 









v «*v •»: 



^0< 



; «5 °^ 




& v . 






^ * 







I*' 




><* 



v, » 



^ 4^0 \IB 









^ 










*<* <•»-% *tifeS /''^k 


















4?.,. 



t> ••tt; 



aV 










: ***** 




& v ♦ 



N. MANCHESTER, 
iNDIANA 46962 



S- -**■. 



^^ . ' ♦ 







^ r 







